European immigrants who have arrived in the UK
since 2000 contributed more than £20billion to the UK public finances between
2001 and 2008

What does the report claim?

The headline-finding of Professor Christian
Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini, of UCL’s Centre for Research and Analysis of
Migration, is that European immigrants who have arrived in the UK since 2000
contributed more than £20billion to the UK public finances between 2001 and
2008. The pair are particularly keen to emphasise the fact that Eastern
European workers put in 12 per cent more in taxes than they received in State
services and handouts.

Were Eastern Europeans the major EU
contributors to the Exchequer?

No. They provided only a quarter of the positive
contributions – despite more than one million people coming from the former
Eastern Bloc since our borders were opened in 2004. Some £15billion of the
total came from the 15 members of the so-called old EU. It includes the vast
sums contributed by bankers, engineers and IT experts from countries such as
France, Germany and Holland.

In practical terms, what does it all mean?

Migrationwatch says the £20billion figure is the
equivalent of a positive contribution of less than £1 a week per head of the
total British population. For Eastern European workers, this figure falls to
around 20p a week. The crucial question is: is this a price worth paying for
the fact that, since 2000, more than a million EU migrants have been added to
the population – placing significant strain on the country’s social fabric.

Does report assess impact of migration from
outside the EU?

Yes – and it makes for far less positive
reading. Between 1995 and 2011, non-European migrants living in the UK cost the
public finances almost £118billion – taking out more in services and benefits
than they paid in taxes for 17 consecutive years. During the same period, EU
migrants made a net contribution of £4.425billion. British natives were a net
drain on the nation’s finances of £541billion – reflecting the fact the country
has been running a significant deficit in recent years.

Why such a gap between EU and non-EU migrant
contributions?

Many of the non-European migrants arrived during
previous waves of immigration. They now have families and are making
significant demands on schools, hospitals and the welfare state. The Eastern
European migrants, by contrast, are typically young and single. EU migrants
also have far higher employment rates. For example, 81.2 per cent of Poles are
in work compared to 46 per cent of those from Pakistan.

Does the report measure the financial cost of
the strain on Britain’s public services?

Calculations have been made to establish how
much migrants cost in terms of government funds, such as medical expenses,
schooling their children and the welfare state. The total was then deducted
from their overall contribution to the public purse, including income tax,
National Insurance, VAT, council tax and business rates.

So what are the key omissions?

First, the scope of the report is too narrow – focussing
on the cost of using public services but not the physical pressure put on
roads, schools and hospitals by having to cope with so many new arrivals. Also,
the report only looks backwards. It examines the taxes paid by the influx of
Eastern Europeans when they are young, single and healthy but does not estimate
the financial impact of them growing older and having families, putting a
greater strain on the NHS and possibly claiming a State pension.

Is there any acknowledgement of this fact in
the report?

Tucked away on p37, there is a paragraph which
states that ‘ageing of the immigrant population that arrived since 2000 may
lead in the longer run to an increase in benefit receipt’. However, the authors
assert this will be offset by the fact some migrants will return home, while
others are yet to achieve their full economic potential.

What about the impact of mass immigration on
British workers?

The study makes no attempt to measure this. The
independent Migration Advisory Committee warned earlier this year that cheap
foreign labour has forced down the wages of some British workers. One study of
pay in London had found the 20 per cent lowest paid had seen wages fall by 15
per cent on average. Driving down the wage of natives pushes up the overall
welfare bill since they are likely to be paid more in tax credits and other
handouts to compensate.

And the effect on British school-leavers?

The report makes great play of the fact that
immigrants have ‘endowed the UK labour market with human capital that would
have cost about £49billion if it were produced through the UK education
system’. However, as David Green of the Civitas think-tank points out, the
arrival of well-educated young migrants coincided with a slump in
apprenticeships for UK teenagers – at great social cost. In 2012, the MAC
estimated that, for every four migrant workers who come to the country from
outside the EU, one British job is lost, again increasing the welfare bill.